Neurodegenerative decline in humans vs. great apes: How colonial science obscures evolutionary trade-offs in brain aging
Original framing: “Chimp and gorilla brains resist weight loss with age — unlike human brains” — Nature
Marginalized voices in primatology, such as women researchers in Global South labs (e.g., Jane Goodall’s early critics or current Kenyan primatologists), often highlight how Western frameworks pathologize non-human aging while ignoring local ecological knowledge. Disabled scholars (e.g., those with neurodegenerative conditions) critique the study’s ableist framing of 'brain decline' as a universal 'problem.' The paper also silences veterinary and conservation scientists who study aging in captive apes, where stress and diet—not evolution—drive neurobiological changes.
This study’s framing is a microcosm of how Western science reproduces colonial patterns: it treats non-human aging as a static biological fact while pathologizing human aging as a 'problem' to solve, ignoring that both are adaptive strategies shaped by evolution and culture.
The power structures at play are clear—biomedical research prioritizes human-centric metrics (brain mass) while erasing Indigenous and cross-species knowledge that treats aging as a relational, ecological, and even spiritual process. Historical precedents, from eugenics to primatology’s anthropocentrism, show how these biases persist, while marginalized voices—Indigenous scholars, disabled researchers, and Global South primatologists—have long warned of this extractive approach. The trickster lens reveals the absurdity: we celebrate apes for 'resisting' aging while medicalizing our own, as if evolution had a favorite. Solutions must center decolonized neuroethics, metabolic-ecological models, artistic resilience, and satirical disruption to reframe aging as a shared, adaptive phenomenon—not a hierarchy of decline.